20 MAY 2019 RESEARCH & IDEAS

Activist CEOs Are Rising Up—and Their Customers Are

Listening
by Michael Blanding

Are product sales affected by the CEO's stance on political and social issues?
Michael Toffel and Aaron Chatterji study how consumers react to vocal chief
executives.

When former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced earlier this year he was thinking about running
for president of the United States, it wasn’t a new idea. Past CEOs seeking the White House have
included Carly Fiorina, Ross Perot, Herman Cain, Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, and, of course, Donald J.
Trump.

However, there was one key difference separating his potential candidacy from the others: brand
awareness. Because of the public’s close identification of him with Starbucks, Schultz’s run could lead
to blowback to the coffee retailer in the explosive environment that is American politics. As the
Washington Post headlined, If Howard Schultz runs for president, Starbucks will be on the ballot, too.

Schultz’s political ambitions mark a growing wave of business leaders speaking out on social issues—
termed “CEO activism” by Michael Toffel of Harvard Business School and Aaron Chatterji of Duke’s
Fuqua School of Business. Toffel is the Senator John Heinz Professor of Environmental Management at
HBS.

“… SOME CEOS BELIEVE THEY CAN’T BE SILENT WHEN A PROPOSED

GOVERNMENT POLICY MIGHT LEAD SOME OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO
BE SUBJECTED TO INEQUALITY OR HARASSMENT.”
Whether it is Unilever CEO Paul Polman advocating on climate change; Merck CEO Ken Frazier
protesting President Trump’s response to a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville; or Chick-fil-A CEO
Dan Cathy speaking out against gay marriage, the current trend of CEO activism seems to come from a
deep-seated personal conviction on the part of the individual, Toffel says. But it also signals the values
and culture of the company the CEO heads.

“If one of your company’s core values is equality, some CEOs believe they can’t be silent when a
proposed government policy might lead some of their employees to be subjected to inequality or
harassment,” says Toffel. “Speaking out can reinforce those values inside the organization and telegraph
them to prospective employees as well.”

A new type of advocacy

It’s a different form of business advocacy than when companies such as Patagonia put their brand on the
line to advocate for a position. Now, “it’s the CEO, not the company, weighing in on the issues,” says
Toffel, who is also Faculty Chair of the HBS Business and Environment Initiative. “Second, it’s
conducted in public—it’s not related to backroom dealing, lobbying, or campaign contributions.”

Business leader activism is also a significant trend because of our CEO-as-celebrity culture. “CEOs have
the opportunity to get their words associated with those policies because when they engage in this type
of activism, it is front-page news,” says Toffel. More so than say a political speech by a mayor, which is
expected and therefore not as newsworthy.

Which leads to the next question: Does a CEO’s soapbox proclamations on issues unrelated to the
company influence public opinion or change consumer behavior?

Studying the issue since 2016, Toffel and Chatterji have begun to piece together answers to those
questions, which are addressed in the May 2019 paper Assessing the Impact of CEO Activism (pdf),
published in the journal Organization & Environment. Toffel’s case study CEO Activism is taught to HBS
MBA students.
The Tim Cook experiments
To gauge the effects, the researchers ran two experiments. The first was designed to determine whether
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s vocal opposition to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 2015,
which he saw as discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals, would influence public opinion on the new
law. First, survey respondents were asked whether they support RFRA. In doing so, researchers
randomized conditions to sometimes also mention the legislation was opposed by Cook, or by another
CEO, a politician, or just by “some people.”

When simply asked whether they supported the law, there was a 50/50 split among the 2,176
respondents. When mentioning Cook’s opposition, however, support for the bill fell to 40 percent—about
the same amount of decline following a politician’s opposition. This was somewhat eye-opening.
Although one might expect policy to be influenced on political issues by political leaders, “it seems CEOs
have just as much sway,” says Toffel.

The researchers also learned that, in some cases, Cook’s activism could potentially lead to increased
product sales, although that was not the intent of his opposition. “The people in the group exposed to
Cook’s activism, we found, expressed significantly higher intent to buy Apple products in the near future
than those in the other two groups,” wrote Toffel and Chatterji in a recent article in Harvard Business
Review.

They also looked to see whether reactions differed depending on whether they supported same-sex
marriage—and thus more likely agreed with Cook’s discrimination concerns—or opposed it. “Learning
about Cook’s activism increased intent to purchase among supporters of same-sex marriage but did not
erode intent among its opponents,” Toffel says.

Climate change doesn't move perceptions

In the other experiment, Toffel and Chatterji looked at climate change, examining whether respondents
thought the government was doing too much, not enough, or just the right amount to fight it. In this
case, opinions stayed the same whether they told participants that CEOs supported climate change
efforts or not.

“We really found no effect regardless of whether the CEO referred to climate change as a threat to the
economy, the country, or the next generation,” Toffel says. “It may be that the issue has been so
politicized that CEOs seem unable to shift anyone’s views.”

The mixed results of the two studies suggest that CEOs might be able to sway public opinion on some
issues but not others. While the results of the Cook study show that high-profile executives might
sometimes be able to do so without any negative backlash toward their companies, that’s not always the
case.

“LEARNING ABOUT COOK’S ACTIVISM INCREASED INTENT TO

PURCHASE AMONG SUPPORTERS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BUT DID
NOT ERODE INTENT AMONG ITS OPPONENTS.”
In highly publicized incidents, consumers boycotted Chick-fil-A based on statements of its CEO against
gay marriage, and Under Armour over the chief executive’s criticisms of President Trump. On
controversial issues such as gay marriage or climate change, CEOs runs the risk of alienating employees
and potential recruits who don’t hold the same beliefs. Activism can present an even more significant
risk in terms of how customers will respond.

Lessons for managers

The results suggest that CEOs must proceed thoughtfully, weighing whether the political makeup of their
consumers and the nature of their products might lead to unintended consequences.

“You have to consider these cases on an individual basis, but we hope to do more research to figure out
when CEO activism will be convincing, and when it will trigger a backlash,” Toffel says.

In future research, Toffel and Chatterji plan to look at how the media cover CEO activism, how CEOs
engage with their boards on their activism, and how activist comments by executives change actual
purchase behavior, rather than just claimed intentions to purchase.

“It’s such a new phenomenon that there are many questions still to be answered,” Toffel says. “Right
now, it’s still early days as CEOs think through the potential opportunities and risks.”

About the Author

Michael Blanding is a writer based in the Boston area.

[Image: FangXiaNuo]

Related Reading:
When CEOs Become Activists

What Are the Limits of CEO Activism?

Corporate Leaders Need to Step Up on Climate Change

What do you think of this research?

Share your insights below.

POST A COMMENT
In order to be published, comments must be on-topic and civil in tone, with no name
calling or personal attacks. Your comment may be
edited for clarity and length.

2 Comments

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Like this article?

Subscribe to Working Knowledge to receive daily updates of the latest articles delivered straight to your inbox.

✉ Enter email address Subscribe

Hide this message

Sort by Newest ⥅

PIUS JAMES • 3 years ago

Active CEOs would make good politicians as they will bring to bear their management expertise from the
private sector into the public settings in resource allocation.
Reply • Share ›

Todd Z. • 3 years ago

These CEOs usually speak too soon, and also do so based of reporting from solely the main stream media.
By definition this means they are getting one side of an argument, the progressive/liberal side. Like college
campuses today (including Harvard) conservative viewpoints are actively excluded. I'd wager that a survey
of Ivy League professors and administrators would reveal that they have almost no friends who voted for
Donald Trump, yet half the country did. They don't understand half of America, and neither do these CEOs. I
have a long list of companies that I no longer patronize based off their political activism. There are many
people doing this. I suppose in the Trump booming economy, all boats are rising and these companies won't
see the impact of the customers that they have lost. They may even think their activism led to rising sales -
and again, they would be mistaken. It would have been higher! Send your thank-you notes to the White
House - and secretly hope that Trump gets re-elected, as any of the Democrat candidates getting in will lead
to the largest collapse of the stock market and overall economy we've ever seen.
Reply • Share ›

🔒 Privacy ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data